I understand now. I have to agree with you that the SQlite option will be the least resource intensive thing to use. I used to use a file based RDBS a long time ago that was very easy to implement with a very small footprint, but I cannot seem to find any reference to it anywhere.
On 2014-04-21 17:37, andy pugh wrote: > On 21 April 2014 11:33, Marius Liebenberg <mar...@mastercut.co.za> wrote: >> Whats wrong with a file based tool table. It is easier for the layman to >> maintain offline as well. > A simple flat file has to make assumptions about what data can be > stored. Specifically it would have to make assumptions about how many > offsets each tool was allowed to have, for example. > > The relational database approach allows one tool to have many offsets, > one pocket to contain many tools (and, conversely. one tool to appear > in many pockets) and so on. > > In most cases it will look exactly the same in tooledit (or whatever > replaces tooledit). But if Kirk wanted to add a nose-radius tag to the > geometry table, he can easily do that without breaking anything else. > -- Regards /Groete Marius D. Liebenberg +27 82 698 3251 +27 12 743 6064 QQ 1767394877 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
